Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Cyvid7-Darus10/claude-code-config --skill swift-protocol-di-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Cyvid7-Darus10/claude-code-configWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/cyvid7-darus10/claude-code-config/swift-protocol-di-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cyvid7-darus10/claude-code-config/swift-protocol-di-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cyvid7-darus10/claude-code-config/swift-protocol-di-testing.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00032 | $0.01295 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00647 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00259 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
swift-protocol-di-testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to swift-protocol-di-testing — 1 line differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 191 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Swift Protocol-Based Dependency Injection for Testing
Patterns for making Swift code testable by abstracting external dependencies (file system, network, iCloud) behind small, focused protocols. Enables deterministic tests without I/O.
When to Activate
- Writing Swift code that accesses file system, network, or external APIs
- Need to test error handling paths without triggering real failures
- Building modules that work across environments (app, test, SwiftUI preview)
- Designing testable architecture with Swift concurrency (actors, Sendable)
Core Pattern
1. Define Small, Focused Protocols
Each protocol handles exactly one external concern.
// File system access
public protocol FileSystemProviding: Sendable {
func containerURL(for purpose: Purpose) -> URL?
}
// File read/write operations
public protocol FileAccessorProviding: Sendable {
func read(from url: URL) throws -> Data
func write(_ data: Data, to url: URL) throws
func fileExists(at url: URL) -> Bool
}
// Bookmark storage (e.g., for sandboxed apps)
public protocol BookmarkStorageProviding: Sendable {
func saveBookmark(_ data: Data, for key: String) throws
func loadBookmark(for key: String) throws -> Data?
}
2. Create Default (Production) Implementations
public struct DefaultFileSystemProvider: FileSystemProviding {
public init() {}
public func containerURL(for purpose: Purpose) -> URL? {
FileManager.default.url(forUbiquityContainerIdentifier: nil)
}
}
public struct DefaultFileAccessor: FileAccessorProviding {
public init() {}
public func read(from url: URL) throws -> Data {
try Data(contentsOf: url)
}
public func write(_ data: Data, to url: URL) throws {
try data.write(to: url, options: .atomic)
}
public func fileExists(at url: URL) -> Bool {
FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: url.path)
}
}
3. Create Mock Implementations for Testing
public final class MockFileAccessor: FileAccessorProviding, @unchecked Sendable {
public var files: [URL: Data] = [:]
public var readError: Error?
public var writeError: Error?
public init() {}
public func read(from url: URL) throws -> Data {
if let error = readError { throw error }
guard let data = files[url] else {
throw CocoaError(.fileReadNoSuchFile)
}
return data
}
public func write(_ data: Data, to url: URL) throws {
if let error = writeError { throw error }
files[url] = data
}
public func fileExists(at url: URL) -> Bool {
files[url] != nil
}
}
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 7d ago First seen · 191 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 780bf7d46242
swift-protocol-di-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository Cyvid7-Darus10/claude-code-config (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,295 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to swift-protocol-di-testing, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
unit-test
A Go testing workflow for writing unit tests: small tests that check individual functions or components. It supports table-driven cases, where many inputs and expected results are organised in one test, and subtests.
fuzzing-test
A Go testing guide for generating fuzz tests, which repeatedly try varied inputs to find crashes and unexpected behavior. It first checks whether the code is suitable for fuzzing.
axiom-swift-testing
Use when writing unit tests, adopting Swift Testing framework, making tests run faster without simulator, architecting code for testability, testing async code reliably, or migrating from XCTest - covers @Test/@Suite macros.
golang-testing
Production-ready Golang tests — table-driven tests, testify suites and mocks, parallel tests, fuzzing, fixtures, goroutine leak detection with goleak, snapshot testing, code coverage, integration tests, idiomatic test naming. Use when writing or reviewing Go tests, choosing a testing approach, setting up Go test CI…
modernize-tests
Modernize test suites to use modern Swift Testing features or migrate from XCTest.
swift-testing-expert
Expert guidance for Swift Testing: test structure, #expect/#require macros, traits and tags, parameterized tests, test plans, parallel execution, async waiting patterns, and XCTest migration. Use when writing new Swift tests, modernizing XCTest suites, debugging flaky tests, or improving test quality and…